Partly allowed

Akshay S/O Vinayak Palaspagar v. State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Nandgaon Khandeshwar Tah.Nandgaon Khandeshwar Distamravati and Anoth

Bombay HC10 Jun 2022APL/215/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed an anticipatory bail application. It held that offences under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC were prima facie made out. However, since stalking under Section 354-D requires repeated conduct which is absent, the charge thereunder was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The offence punishable under Section 354-D of the IPC registered vide Crime No. 344/2019 is quashed and set aside.

Akshay S/O Vinayak Palaspagar Vs State of Mah., Thr… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

APl.215.20

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 215 /2020

¶5

Akshay s/o Vinayak Palaspagar Aged about 27 years, occu: service R/o Lahan Umari Near Siddarth Vidyalaya Akola.

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra

¶9

Through PSO PS Nandgaon-Khandeshwar Dist.Amravati.

¶10

Sau. Anita w/o Vilas Wankhade Aged about 37 years, occu: Housewife R/o Rahul Nagar, Amravati Mob. No. m9765291654

¶11

.. Respondents ( Non Applicants)

¶12

Mr. Shashibhushan Wahane, Advocate for Applicants Mr. S.D. Sirpurkar, APP for Respondent no. 1

¶13

CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE AND G.A. SANAP,JJ. DATED : 10^th June, 2022.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

Heard.

APl.215.20

Rule . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

¶19

consent of respective Advocates.

¶20

Shri Wahane, learned counsel for the applicant submits that none of the offences which have been registered against the applicants at Police Station Nandgaon-Khandeshwar vide Crime No. 344/2019 is made out in the present case. According to him, mere catching hold of hand of a woman without any sexual intention does not constitute any offences of outraging modesty of woman or sexual harassment which are punishable under sections 354, 354-A and 354-D of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that similarly no offence of stalking, punishable under Section 354-D of the IPC, against the applicant is made out as there is no allegation of the applicant repeatedly following the complainant or attempting to contact the complainant to foster personal interaction with her and, therefore, according to him, the offence registered u/ss. 354, 354-A and 354-D of IPC against the applicant deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶21

APl.215.20

¶22

¶23

The learned APP opposing the application submits that

¶24

taking the allegations made against the applicant at their face value, all ingredients of the said offence are fulfilled and, therefore, it is not a fit case to interfere in the matter.

¶25

Upon considering the contents of the FIR and also the case diary, we find that there is substance in the argument of learned APP for the State that, insofar as the offence punishable u/s 354 and 354-A IPC are concerned, there are specific allegations against the applicant and, in our view, they prima facie constitute the offences punishable u/ss. 354 and 354A of IPC. However, as regards the offence punishable u/s. 354-D IPC, we find that it is an admitted position that except for the incident of 27.01.2019 wherein the applicant had followed the complainant, there is no other incident stated by the complainant. This is also accepted by the learned APP. In order to constitute an offenc of stalking for offence punishable u/s 354-D of the IPC, repeated following and

¶26

APl.215.20

¶27

¶28

contacts with the woman are required and same is absent here and, therefore, this offence is not prima facie made out. There is no material justifying proceeding of the investigating agency against the applicant for offence of stalking. To this extent, we are of the view that the instant Application can be allowed.

¶29

In the result, the Application is partly allowed. The offence punishable u/s 354-D of IPC registered vide Crime No. 344/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶30

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

¶31

sahare

¶32

Digitally Signed ByNARENDRA BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE Location: Signing Date:14.06.2022 15:12

Akshay S/O Vinayak Palaspagar v. State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Nandgaon Khandeshwar Tah.Nandgaon Khandeshwar Distamravati and Anoth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay S/O Vinayak Palaspagar v. State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Nandgaon Khandeshwar Tah.Nandgaon Khandeshwar Distamravati and Anoth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheikh Shahid S/O Sheikh Jibrail and 3 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hingna Tah.and Dist.Nagpur and Another

Vishal S/O Marotrao Shende Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Awadhutwadi Yavatmal and Another

Raju @ Rajendra Natthuji Fule Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Home Dep. Mantralaya MUMBAI-32 and Another

State of Mah. Thru. Pso Warora Vs Youraj S/O Dayal Meshram

Vaibhav S/O Sudam Borkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Frezarpura, Dist. Amravati and Another

Abdul Raheman Abdul Bashir Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Home Department (Prison), Mantralaya, MUMBAI-32 and 2 Othr